The Hot Springs star. (Hot Spings [Hot Springs], Dakota [Dakota Territory, i.e. S.D.]) 1886-189?, 1887-09-23
The International Dis,illery.

Special Telegram to the Beetle
supreme court has filed its opinion in
the case brought to permanently Gil
join the International distillcry of Des
Moines as a nuisance for alleged viola
ton of the prohibitory law. 1t sustains
the injunction decree of the lower
court. The majority opinion, written
by Judge Beck, receives the assent of
Justices Adams and Rothrock. A dis
ssnting opinion, written by Justice
Sewers. receives the approval of Justice
Reed. Suit was brought last spring to
have the distillcry enjoined from man
ufacturing alcohol on proof spirits, on
the ground that the prohibitory law
which forbade the manufacture and
sale of liquor, applied to it the same as
to the brewery or saloon. The owner
of the distillcry, Mr.. Geo. w. Kidd, of
New York, resisted the suit ON the
ground that his manufacture was en-
tircly for export without the state, and
that nc portion of his goods was sold
in Iowa. He had secured the advice
Of eminent counsel in New York be-
fore building the distillery here, and
had been assured that, us he was man.
%ufacturing for export only, his plant
could not be interfered with by the
state law. The district court granted
IL temporary injunction, suspending It's
eject for q few weeks to enable the dis
tlllery to close up its affairs, and then
made the injunction permanent.
The case was appealed to the SUI
prcme court, the defendant holding
that the provisions of the prohlbltory
law applied only to manufacture and
sale within the state and that to inter-
fere with 81 business carried on with cit
zens OF other states would be an inter-
ference with commerce which congress
alone has tie power TO regulate. The
majority opinion holds that the right
of the state to prohibit the manufacture
of alcohol is absolute and that it applies
to the distillcry whatever may be the
ultimate destination of the product. L,
holds that it does not interfere with
Interstate commerce, because it simply
prevents the manufacture of an article,
before it becomes u subject for trans
portation. 1t holds that if it is a.,ains,
pubic policy that liquor be manu,ac.
turcd and sold in Iowa, then this state
has no right to permit its manufacture
for sale III other states.
The minority opinion, written by
Justice Sewers, concludes as follows:
In my judgment the plain and only
meaning of the statute is that the sale
in this state ard the manufacture for
sale and use in this state of intoxicat-
ing liquors for unlawful purposes are
alone prohibited, and thar the statute
does not undertake to say what may be
done with the liquor in another state.
If it did SO Il question would be pre-
sentsd as to the validity of the statute.
Therefore, the right to sell and trans.
Fort liquor from the state exists simply
because it is not prohibited. In my
opinion the construction of the statute
adopted by the majority makes acontlict
between it and the constitution of the
United States, and therefore the fifth par
graph of the foregoing opinion is uil-
sound. AS long us Intoxicating liquors
and corn are regarded as property
the right TO transport either out of the
state exists. although the avowed use
of the corn SO shipped is the manufac-
ture of such liquors in another state.
also desire to reserve to myself the
right hereafter to determine the extent
of police power inherent in the state.
AS an individual 1 cordially assent to
all that is said in the opinion Of the
majority MS to the evils of intcmper-
ance, but l have doubts as to it's mate
ria,ity in the determination of this con
trovcrsy.